Σχόλια 0

Το κείμενο του εγγράφου

WhitepaperConsiderations WhenMigrating Legacy IVRApplicationsAutomated vs. Manual Re-DevelopmentThis document covers the thought process pertainingto the migration of legacy IVR applications to newopen standards-based systems. Commentaryand recommendations are based on experiencewith both manual and automated migrations.July 2012IntegratedVoiceSolutionsWhitepaperpage 2 | www.integratedvoicesolutions.comTable of ContentsIn order tomaintaincompetitivenessand delivergreater valueto customers,businesses needto implementtechnologythat continuesto push themone step aheadof the pack.Introduction — 3IVR Business Issues Facing Enterprises — 4Vendor Consolidation — 4New Technology — 5High Support Fees — 6Are You Migration-Ready? — 6Hosted Solutions vs. On-Premise and Hybrid — 6TDM vs. VoIP — 7Vendor Choice — 8Data — 8Reporting & Analytics — 9The Case for Application Conversion — 9Specification — 9Risk of Disruption — 10Timescales — 11About Arca+ — 11Arca+ Features: — 12Using Arca+ to De-Risk Change — 12About Integrated Voice Solutions — 13IVS offers a free, no obligation migration cost analysis.Please contact us today to get started! — 13Considerations When Migrating Legacy IVR Applicationswww.integratedvoicesolutions.com | page 3IntroductionToday, enterprises of all sizes are faced with IVR platform end-of-life issues. Over time, the applications that run on theseplatforms have been highly refined to reflect specific client and customer needs. Because these legacy applicationswere developed in a proprietary environment, platform end-of-life also signals end-of-service for these applications.In order to maintain competitiveness and deliver greater valueto customers, businesses need to implement technology thatcontinues to push them one step ahead of the pack. Socialmedia, location-based services, and hosting options are forcingbusinesses to take an innovative approach to telephony self-service.Spending money and cycles to redesign and re-develop legacy IVRapplications precludes businesses from taking advantage of newerautomation methods that will cut cost and increase delivery.IVR platform consolidation due to acquisition is increasing. Evenplatforms that remain supported have become secondary to thenewest “Next Big Thing” that the IVR technology vendor provides.While some of these systems are officially still “supported,” typically no more than a skeleton crew exists to assist customers.A new technology platform can open avenues for the delivery ofmore innovative services, yet the cost of deploying a new system andre-developing applications is exorbitant. So far, enterprises have hadto choose between remaining on unsupported or poorly supportedlegacy technology and pay high annual support fees, or to pony up,purchase a new platform, and incur high redevelopment costs.VXML is mature and the most frequently adopted developmentstandard in the telephony industry today. But what is the best way toquickly move proprietary legacy applications to VXML? And moreimportantly, how can enterprises ensure they won’t be locked in again?So far,enterpriseshave had tochoose betweenremaining onunsupportedor poorlysupportedlegacytechnology andpaying highannual supportfees, or to ponyup, purchase anew platform,and incur highredevelopmentcosts.Whitepaperpage 4 | www.integratedvoicesolutions.comIVR Business Issues FacingEnterprisesUnderstanding key business issues helps enterprises save money, reducerisk, decrease timeline, and maximize resources during migration projects.Vendor ConsolidationIn today’s challenging economic climate, there has been muchconsolidation in the IVR market. As a result, some industry leadersactively support as many as four different IVR platforms. It islogical to predict that their next step will be to reduce theirsupported product set and consolidate their clients onto asingle platform selected from their bulging portfolios.It’s a hard reality that some enterprises find themselves operating their businesses on a platform that has less than a year before end-of-support, or that their system is next on the “obsolescence” list.Enterprises need to discuss their IVR solution with vendors inorder to properly expose how much life an existing platformrealistically has left. Some questions to consider include:• Is an incentive being offered to move to another of that vendor’splatforms?• Has the quality of support declined, or been sent offshore?• Are there longer periods than usual between version releases?• As a new release comes out, what is the content?• Does the release include new exciting features and support for newtechnologies, or does it include platform changes designed to driveadoption of their new technology?It’s also inevitable that the best system may not be the one that winsthrough a vendor’s selection process. Enterprises enjoy free reignwhen selecting technology from a large, open marketplace, andtherefore have the benefit of choosing the platform that best suits their needs based on their unique criteria. A vendor that has consumed itscompetition may have other loyalties when deciding which platform isto be continued and which is to become obsolete. Oftentimes, the final choice is not which is the most robust, which has the best developmenttools, or which is the most extensible; other factors are in play.Enterprisesenjoy free reignwhen selectingtechnology froma large, openmarketplace,and thereforehave the benefitof choosingthe platformthat best suitstheir needsbased on theirunique criteria.Considerations When Migrating Legacy IVR Applicationswww.integratedvoicesolutions.com | page 5New TechnologyOrganizations are typically faced with enduring a “forklift upgrade”when it comes to moving to a newer version of the same technology.Traditional IVR platforms include a hardware solution (racks, servers, andtelephony cards) and a software solution (port licenses and support),which are bound together and used primarily in TDM telephonyenvironments. Legacy telephony platforms tend to be very robust butthe technology is proprietary and highly inflexible; scaling is limited to the confines of the hardware’s capacity and application development requires specific knowledge. Legacy IVR development staff comes at a higher price point than open standards development staff.Cloud computing has become a reality and IT platforms have becomemore open. Whether through offering open standards, operatingon open source, or allowing integration through industry-standardinterfaces, the high-tech world is becoming more connected.VXML IVR solutions resemble distributed web applications andas such, leverage existing web infrastructure. Web serversare used as application servers, allowing voice and webapplications to run on the same server. With the bulk of therequired infrastructure now industry-standard, administration andoperations can be supported with fewer specialized skills.VXML was once a mysterious, new open standard that threatenedto tear the IVR world apart. Vendors and clients alike courtedthis new innovation with a conflicting mix of fear, excitement, trepidation, and above all, hope. However, in only a few shortyears, the issues with VXML have been resolved, the expertisehas evolved to enable effective deployment of the technology,and the differences in various vendors’ interpretations of thestandard have evened out. In one form or another, VXML is nowthe most accepted standard for deploying an IVR application.Most importantly, deployment of a VXML system does not requireproprietary platform expertise. Because IVR applications nowlive in an open environment, businesses are free from the bondsthat legacy IVR platform vendors had built into their systems. AsVXMLbased IVRapplicationslive in an openenvironment,so businesseswho use themare free fromthe bondsthat legacyIVR platformvendors hadbuilt into theirsystems.Whitepaperpage 6 | www.integratedvoicesolutions.comnewer technologies and services arise, enterprises are now able toincorporate them at will. Adoption drives technology forward.An IVR solution implemented using VXML enables automatedtelephone services to embrace new technology and market trendsat the pace of corporate needs and not that of an IVR vendor.High Support FeesOlder IVR platforms typically connect to IT systems that have becomenon-existent or have seen very limited market share in the last fewyears. Enterprises have continued to pay vendors for support of theseunused interfaces, which is a primary reason for the significant cost differences between proprietary IVR systems and newer open standards.Because they utilize existing web architectures, open-standardIVR systems do not carry the connectivity to older IT infrastructuresand therefore, the cost of support and maintenance issignificantly lower. Oftentimes, the investment in moving from a legacy platform can be recouped in less than two years.